The purpose of this article is to refute the position previously advanced by Randy Barnett in an essay on restitution, which stated that punishment is unjustified and that restitution should be imposed as an alternative to punishment. The article denies the validity of such a radical departure from the theory of restitution, as well as the need for a radical transformation of the American system of justice; it argues that restitution is regarded as a form of punishment and that criminals incur debts to society when they commit their crimes. The claims of punitive restitution against those of pure restitution are defended. From a victim's perspective, restitution may not be particularly effective in restoring victim losses, although it may meet society's need for restoration through punishment of offenders. Community service is recommended as a form of indirect restitution when direct restitution is not possible for lack of some person who can be identified as the criminal's victim. A State-supported compensation program should be implemented in order to aid victims even when those who victimized them have not been apprehended or convicted. A total of 20 endnotes are appended.